The Parliament in the early hours of Friday approved the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, following a lengthy and intense discussion in the Rajya Sabha. The Bill was passed in the Upper House by a majority vote of 128 in favor and 95 against, just a day after it had been cleared in the Lok Sabha after a marathon debate that lasted nearly 12 hours.
A day after Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju passionately defended the Waqf (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha, the debate in the Rajya Sabha saw Union Minister and Leader of the House, J.P. Nadda, leading the charge. He launched a scathing attack on the opposition, particularly the Congress party, over its handling of the Waqf Act, accusing it of having crafted the original legislation in a manner that allegedly facilitated land mafias.
The debate, which started on Thursday, culminated in a vote on Friday with the majority of Rajya Sabha members backing the Bill. The proposed amendments to the Waqf Act now await President Droupadi Murmu’s assent to become law.
In his address on Thursday, J.P. Nadda underscored the necessity of reforming the Waqf Act to protect national interests and prevent the misuse of Waqf properties. These properties, he argued, should be used for the welfare of poor Muslims. He highlighted the national importance of the Bill and the depth of deliberation that had gone into its drafting. Nadda noted the establishment of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) under the Narendra Modi-led government, comprising 31 members, which had facilitated over 200 hours of debate. This, he pointed out, was a significant improvement over the UPA-era JPC of 2013, which had only 13 members and had conducted far fewer consultations.
The JPC, Nadda stated, had convened 36 meetings, consulted 284 stakeholders, and visited 10 locations, contrasting it with the UPA’s limited engagement with only 18 stakeholders. He emphasized that the government’s commitment to thorough consultation reflected the Prime Minister’s dedication to meaningful democratic discourse.
Turning to constitutional concerns, Nadda explained that under previous regulations, Waqf land claims were shielded from challenges in civil courts, a provision he described as inconsistent with constitutional principles. He asserted that the Waqf Amendment Bill would empower district collectors to adjudicate rightful ownership of properties and explicitly exclude lands under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) from Waqf claims.
Nadda also focused on social issues, accusing the opposition of failing to address the plight of Muslim women. He criticized the Congress-led UPA government for delaying the abolition of “triple talaq,” despite the Supreme Court’s recommendation. He noted that countries like Turkey had abolished the practice as early as 1929, highlighting the importance of empowering Muslim women, a reform that was eventually enacted under Prime Minister Modi’s leadership.
The Bill sparked heated discussions in the Rajya Sabha, with several opposition members voicing strong concerns. Congress leader Syed Naseer Hussain accused the BJP of using the Bill to polarize and mislead the public, claiming it was part of a broader misinformation campaign. Independent MP Kapil Sibal criticized the Bill for restricting property donations to Muslims and questioned its alignment with the concept of “one nation, one law.” Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi labeled the Bill a conspiracy that violated constitutional rights under Articles 25-26, accusing the government of acting arbitrarily.
In contrast, former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda expressed support for the Bill, praising its intent to safeguard donor-given properties from misuse. Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut mocked the government’s sudden concern for Muslims, while BJD MP Muzibullah Khan urged the government to address fears among Muslims regarding the Bill’s impact. AAP MP Sanjay Singh demanded greater transparency regarding public feedback on the Bill.
Trinamool Congress MP Nadimul Haque warned that the Bill could set a dangerous precedent for targeting properties of other religious communities in the future. He described the Bill as discriminatory and a threat to the federal structure, urging caution against divisive policies.
The debate in both Houses underscored deep divisions, with the government advocating for reforms to combat corruption and mismanagement, while the opposition questioned the Bill’s intent and its potential impact on the Muslim minority. Despite the opposition’s concerns, the government maintains that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill is a necessary step to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the management of Waqf endowments.
